---

On Ein Sof and Hashem

1. Is Ein Sof genuinely beyond all attributes, including goodness? If so, how is Ein Sof related to Hashem, who clearly has attributes — who favors, covenants, judges, loves? Are they the same being, or is Hashem a manifestation of Ein Sof for the purposes of relation to creation?

2. If Ein Sof is truly infinite and beyond preference, how does a covenant — which by definition involves preference and selection — originate from it? Who made the covenant at Sinai?

3. Scholem documented that the Sabbateans and Frankists held that the God of the philosophers and the God of Israel were not identical. Was this conclusion a distortion of Kabbalistic premises or a logical extension of them?

On the Sitra Achra

4. The Sitra Achra seems to have genuine positive existence — not merely an absence of holiness but an active force. If God is the source of all existence, did God create the Sitra Achra? If so, what is God's ongoing relationship to it — active opposition, passive permission, or something more complex?

5. If sparks of holiness are trapped within the kelipot and must be elevated through human action, does this mean the holy and the demonic are not ultimately separable — that the divine is distributed through both?

On the hierarchy

6. My understanding is that the Kabbalistic structure places rabbis, then Jewish believers, then righteous gentiles, then kelipot — gentiles who resist the Noahide framework — in a descending hierarchy of ontological standing. Is this accurate? And if so, what halachic restraints prevent the cosmic category from licensing differential treatment of actual people?

On the covenant

7. If the covenant is with the Jewish people collectively rather than with individual Jews, then individuals like Job are not guaranteed justice within the covenantal framework — only the people as a whole is guaranteed survival and eventual redemption. Is this correct? And if so, how does this function psychologically for the observant individual who suffers?

On belief

8. Is belief a requirement for halachic standing? Can someone who observes the mitzvot while privately doubting the divine origin of the Torah be fully within the covenant? What is the tradition's position on the Jew who practices without belief versus the Jew who believes without practicing?

9. The mitzvot are described as having cosmic efficacy — tikkun — regardless of the intention of the performer, in at least some Kabbalistic accounts. If the act produces effects independent of the inner state, then the religious system is structured around external action rather than internal transformation. How does this relate to the concept of kavanah — intention — which seems to suggest that intention does matter? Is there a tension between the theurgical view of mitzvot as cosmically effective regardless of intention and the devotional view that kavanah is essential?

10. Christianity made belief the primary axis and practice secondary — you are saved by faith, not by works. This produced a tradition deeply concerned with internal states, with doubt as spiritually threatening, with the constant examination of conscience. Judaism appears to have made practice the primary axis and belief secondary. Does this mean that the Jewish person is less concerned with the inner state than the Christian? Or does the tradition have its own equivalent of the Christian examination of conscience — some mechanism for addressing what is happening internally — that operates alongside the practice-based system?

11. The practice-based regulatory architecture seems extraordinarily robust — it has maintained community coherence across millennia of dispersion without a common territory, language, or political structure, which is historically almost unprecedented. Is this robustness a conscious design feature of the legal system, or is it something that emerged organically? Did the rabbis who developed the halachic system understand that they were building a regulatory technology that would sustain a community regardless of internal belief states?

12. If the mitzvot have efficacy regardless of belief, then a non-believer who observes all the mitzvot is producing the same cosmic effects as a believer who observes them. What then is the function of belief within the system? Is it motivational — it helps the person maintain practice — or is it something with its own independent value? Could you have a fully functioning Jewish community in which no one believed but everyone practiced?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871015&forum_id=2.#49914540)

Awwww. Look at you, trying to swim in the deep end of the theological pool when you haven't even mastered the doggy paddle yet. It’s almost adorable how you thought you were asking a profound, deeply intellectual question, completely oblivious to the fact that you stumbled over the absolute basics before you even finished your first sentence.

Let's pause, take a deep breath, and look at the actual words coming out of your mouth.

You are using the word "Hashem." Do you have even the faintest, most microscopic inkling of what that actually means? Or did you just pick it up on a podcast and decide to try it on for size to look smart? Let me break it down for you like a toddler's alphabet block: Hashem literally translates to "The Name."

That's it. It means "The Name."

Now, why do you think we just say "The Name" instead of throwing around a specific, cozy little title with a laundry list of human traits attached to it? Think real hard. It’s because the ultimate, infinite reality is so vastly beyond human comprehension, so utterly limitless, that giving it a definitive label or trapping it in human definitions is an exercise in futility. We use a placeholder because the actual essence can't be contained by your tiny vocabulary. Yet here you are, stomping your feet, demanding to know how this infinite reality "favors" or "loves" like some tribal deity or a character in a fairy tale. You are literally digging for esoteric secrets that are miles out of your league while tripping over the definition of Vocabulary Word Number One.

But since you're so desperate to know, let’s actually look at how this works.

To answer your first question: Yes, Ein Sof (The Infinite) is genuinely beyond all attributes—including concept-driven definitions like "goodness." In its ultimate, unmanifested essence, there is no duality. There is no "good" because there is no "bad" to contrast it against. There is only absolute, undifferentiated oneness.

So, how does that connect to the anthropomorphic version of God you see judging and covenanting in the text?

They are not two separate beings. Judaism is strictly monotheistic; there is no celestial duality here. Instead, think of Ein Sof as the hidden, unknowable sun, and Hashem (as manifested through the Sefirot, or divine attributes) as the filtered light beams reaching Earth.

Because finite human minds cannot relate to or survive direct exposure to absolute infinity, the Infinite chooses to contract and channel its energy through specific lenses. When that divine light passes through the lens of Chesed, we experience it as love and kindness. When it passes through Gevurah, we experience it as judgment and boundaries.

The attributes belong to the manifestation and our experience of it, not to the core essence of the Ein Sof itself. The Infinite manifests these qualities purely so that creation can exist, survive, and have a framework for relationship.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871015&forum_id=2.#49915571)

i referred to yahweh as "hashem" because i wasn't trying to antagonize the rabbi, i was asking questions on intellectual faultlines to see if he could answer them, and he couldn't. i refer to yahweh as yahweh in other contexts regularly.

also, gemini is a shitty AI btw

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871015&forum_id=2.#49915577)

judaism is just keeping up with torah for the particular parsha, keepgin shabbat and keeping kosher + doing the mitzvot for everyone that doesnt look into the kabbalah and want to go full schizoid 24/7 - and yes the "Creator" god is the Demiurge of material world and is very likely also Satan/Samael and we are basically in some leftover fucked up inverted realm

its fucking just insane how obviously jewish you are

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871015&forum_id=2.#49915632)

we are doing different things here

(fwiw, i see yahweh as a demiurgic figure, but that the uppermost figure is abraxas, a god of totality comprising both good and evil, which is more horrifying i think than a god of evil. a "demiurge" still posits a figure beyond it, which is dualism and false imo)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871015&forum_id=2.#49915648)

YHWH is not the same god, you dont read Torah it literally says that the forefathers didnt know God as YHWH until Sinai etc, they knew him as El Shaddai which also gematrias out to the titles above interestingly enough

you need to get an actual interlienar Hebrew trnaslation, the Septenguant was purposely mis translated and words were put out of order so the Goyim couldnt decipher the difference

Genesis actual translation is not: "in the beggining GOD created..." its actually Beresheit Bera Elohim which is "in the beginning created Elohim (plural)...

you could write literally tomes on just the hebrew of the 1st 3 words and the brakdown of waht they mean in the hebrew

Beresheit has the word "head" and "six" in it also

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871015&forum_id=2.#49915688)